Gallup: Fear of big government at near-record level

View Comments (14)

• "Democrats lead increase in concerns about big government
  by Elizabeth Mendes

  WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' concerns about the threat of big government continue to dwarf those about big business and big labor, and by an even larger margin now than in March 2009. The 64% of Americans who say big government will be the biggest threat to the country is just one percentage point shy of the record high, while the 26% who say big business is down from the 32% recorded during the recession. Relatively few name big labor as the greatest threat...

  ...Almost half of Democrats now say big government is the biggest threat to the nation, more than say so about big business, and far more than were concerned about big government in March 2009. The 32% of Democrats concerned about big government at that time -- shortly after President Obama took office -- was down significantly from a reading in 2006, when George W. Bush was president.

  By contrast, 82% of Republicans and 64% of independents today view big government as the biggest threat, slightly higher percentages than Gallup found in 2009."

  I believe that this poll surveyed all Americans not just Democrats. The Democrats polled just had the greatest increase in concern of Big Government.

  • "... surveyed all Americans not just Democrats."

    Okay, got it. The text of Bonfire's post mentioned democrats, but only relative to the specific stats in that text. The graph reflects all.

    Another couple of random thoughts on this:

    This may show the smashing success of OWS (sarcasm, unlike that same sentiment when mentioned by the MSM, who really do either believe or want everyone else to believe that OWS WAS really a success). They wanted to let the world know that it's us (99%) against THEM (1%). And the results are right there in that graph.

    (Assuming that the graph reflects results after OWS started, which I admit, it may not).

    When I end up in a debate face to face with a lib, it gets interesting. It always starts due to a position I (a screaming libertarian) take that aligns with the conservative position (or my wife - a conservative and born-again - starts it in response to some jab someone takes at Christie, Bush, or other Rep.). It takes interesting turns when I tell him/her that I am a libertarian. A lib almost always does not know how to handle that position. That may be caused at least in part by my uber-logical temperament and absence of emotional outbursts or insults. It also may be due to not having a basis for the usual knee-jerk reactions they have to conservatives.

    But the bottom line is that libs especially end up not being able to argue that big gov't is better in any way.

    • Throwing the fact that I'm a Libertarian into most arguments DOES have the effect of confusing most of the issues, whether the discussion is with a Conservative OR a Liberal. I think that comes from a misunderstanding of Libertarian stances from both sides. As a Libertarian, I look at politicians from both sides of the aisle, and don't think they represent their constituency very well.

• "Or did it just fade out of the news because whatever it was turned out to be a non-issue? In that case, it would show the irresponsibility of the MSM, and the gullibility/lack of intelligence of the audience."

  I think your point here is worth a lot of consideration. Look how the big government trend line declined during the height of the Vietnam War. Was that due to a relief that LBJ was out of power? Also, the big government trend line rose steadily under Reagan. I put that result squarely on the back of the MSM as they had fits over his anti-Soviet rhetoric and massive military build up.

  In short, I believe that the chart appears to be a representation of how people react to the news and whichever bogeyman the media wants to feature.

  • Good points.

    What you are pointing out, in effect, is that there are other variables. The war, who is president, etc. So on the one hand, one might say that sure, the fear of big gov't rises during Reagan (this graph represents exclusively Dems). But then why did it drop when Bush 43 became president?

    It would seem to me that Dems despised Bush more so than Reagan, in their respective eras. And Dems had more to fear from a Bush gov't, since he had majorities in both houses, while Reagan had a majority in the senate only for one congressional session (maybe 2?). And most senate Reps are classic RINOS, especially then.

    Rush basically said it right. All this obsession with surveys is really irresponsibility and laziness on the part of the MSM. They go out, collect a bunch of data (or serve as the consumers of the data, and as we know, if there's a demand, someone will definitely supply it), and report it. And most of these surveys are more pernicious than outright lies. Because they apparently are truth (the people DID in fact provide those answers), but they IMPLY something that is not necessarily (or most of time), is not there. Correlation is not causation.

    And I have actually heard radio news teasers that'll say something like "such-snd-such a program is not working", and the subsequent report consists of a survey that shows that 55% of the respondents THINK the program is not working, and absolutely NO objective facts.

    And that is meaningful news?

    TW, good job keeping Olivia occupied on the Forth Worth/Santa thread. I don't know how you can stand it - you've got the dispositon of a saint. But at least it keeps her off some other threads.

    • Regarding Olivia: I find her entertaining. Her combination of smugness, rightious indignation, arrogance, and blinding ignorance is a rare perfect storm.

      • Can't we just enjoy the peace and quiet?
        Mentioning her name reminds me of Beetlejiuce!

        • Now you sound like me.

        • Sick minds think alike!

      • "...smugness, rightious indignation, arrogance, and blinding ignorance..."

        LOL

        And on top of that, her ability to express all those qualities so well.

• I have participated in telephone surveys and I believe the way the question is asked often has a bearing on what the answer will be.
  Could it be that the leftists among us answered Big Government because they misunderstood the question? Maybe they were worried that big government would cut off their benefits!

  • A leftist misunderstanding a question?

    NOOOOOO! Say it ain't so, poppajoe!

    Serioulsy, though - I recall a news report waaaayyy back in the cenozoic age, when the CIA was at work in El Salvador, and the Nicaragua thing was going on with Sandanista (or was that the dictator we liked?). Somoza? Memory ain't what it used to be.

    Anyway, the same people did 2 surveys. One asked "Should the US interfere/meddle (not sure which word was used), in the affairs of independent nations, such as what we're doing in El Salvador?

    The other was "should the US support freedom fighters who are opposed to dictators, such as what we're doing in El Salvador?

    The answers were very predictable. In the first case, 80% said no, we should not. In the second, 80% said yes we should support them.

• Interesting -

  while both gov't and business graphs are trending upward, there is an unmistakable inverse-correlation going on. When the fear of big business spikes, it does so because people shift from the fear of gov't. This is due to (or indicates) the growing irrelevance of big labor.

  The limitation of this graph is that people have only one choice. It would be more telling if people could pick "all that apply". What exactly it would tell, I'm not sure. Other variables would have to be considered. Maybe the numbe of people answering gov't + labor (and excluding business), would answer some of Sidekick's Q's above.

  Such as, what exactly happened in 2002-2003, when we see the spike down in fear of gov't and the opposite with business. What event occurred? What was the coverage? And what happened when everything reverted back to the "normal" range? Was it because everyone was satisfied when a couple of big business leaders went to prison?

  If it was Madoff, or a similar thing, why should there be a fear of business in general? When that nut in Oslo shot up 70 or whatever it was, people, did people suddenly have a fear of people? So how much of a role does news coverage play in this?

  Or did it just fade out of the news because whatever it was turned out to be a non-issue? In that case, it would show the irresponsibility of the MSM, and the gullibility/lack of intelligence of the audience.

• Buried in the numbers must be the combination of "Big Government" and the political and financial impact of public sector unions. Given what has happened in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio that battle has barely begun.

  This poll also shows how far off the mark the OWS loons were in trying to capture some consensus of public sentiment.